With due respect to the person who suggested that Meadows incinerated his 5A rights, I wonder whether the case would or should be interpreted as broadly as the quote in question appears to suggest at first blush:
The cited case concerned a defendant who was called to give evidence on her own behalf at her criminal trial;
“ 3. The defendant was sworn as a witness and testified in her own behalf. On cross examination she was asked by the district attorney if she could recognize the gun she used to shoot her husband. She answered: “That looks like it.” The defense counsel objected to the answer on the ground that his client “is being forced to give a self-incriminating statement … and I advise her that she doesn’t have to answer that question.” ”
So the issue was whether she had given up her 5A rights within the particular proceedings and in respect of the scope of cross-examination of her.
I question whether the removal proceedings are part of the criminal proceedings which follow either in Federal Court or in State Court.
In a removal hearing, which is a civil action before the federal district court, and as with any non-trial proceedings, courts have more flexibility over how strictly they apply the rules of evidence.
How does a defendant establish a colorable defense?
A defendant satisfies his burden under Mesa through “direct averments” and “competent proof.”
A defendant need not testify. [removals relating to underlying civil or criminal matters are similar but may exhibit slight differences due to the different issues at stake]
Neither defendant testified in Heinze.
Affidavits have been used in criminal cases.[37]
In civil cases, the Fifth and Ninth Circuits allow “summary-judgment-type evidence,”[38] and have allowed those opposing removal to submit “extensive evidence outside the pleadings, including military specifications, technical manuals, warning label guides, and deposition excerpts.[39] Criminal cases will likely take the same, if not broader, position.
If a defendant invokes their Fifth Amendment right, is the court able to draw any adverse inference?
It is unclear. …
We are unaware of any case permitting an adverse inference in a removal hearing, and courts have ruled on both sides of the issue in habeas proceedings, which may be analogized to a removal hearing. That said, a defendant who seeks removal under the federal removal statute waives their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in removal proceedings, “at least to the extent of disclosing in his application for removal all the circumstances known to him out of which the prosecution arose.”[40] “
On this view Meadows evidence in these proceedings would be hearsay vis-a-vis any subsequent criminal proceedings, albeit parts may be admissible in evidence by virtue of exceptions to the hearsay rule
"I was just obeying orders." That bird hasn't flown since Nuremberg and it's not even trying this time. He has shot himself in both testicles in a futile attempt to gain the sympathy of a jury.
"I--the royal we," continued Meadows. "You know, the editorial... Look, I've got certain information, certain things have come to light, and uh, has it ever occurred to you, man, that given the nature of all this new shit, that, uh, instead of running around blaming me, that this whole thing might just be, not, you know, not just such a simple, but uh--you know?"
"If he doesn’t manage to get this case dismissed, Meadows is going to be tried somewhere under Georgia law. And so it was incredibly risky for him to get up on the witness stand and not only lock himself into this testimony, but potentially waive his Fifth Amendment rights at trial. Clearly, he concluded that this hearing was for all the marbles, and so you’d expect him to be well-prepared for questions about the nexus between his actions to thwart the will of the electorate and his official duties. But you would be wrong! According to reporters inside the courtroom, Meadows stumbled badly in his testimony and potentially perjured himself."
Oh, this is going to be fun for Jack Smith and his crowd. They can now investigate Meadows for perjury in violation of federal law and use his testimony against against him AND Trump!
Please don't link to Andrew on Opening Arguments. He's a creeper and abusive.
With due respect to the person who suggested that Meadows incinerated his 5A rights, I wonder whether the case would or should be interpreted as broadly as the quote in question appears to suggest at first blush:
The cited case concerned a defendant who was called to give evidence on her own behalf at her criminal trial;
“ 3. The defendant was sworn as a witness and testified in her own behalf. On cross examination she was asked by the district attorney if she could recognize the gun she used to shoot her husband. She answered: “That looks like it.” The defense counsel objected to the answer on the ground that his client “is being forced to give a self-incriminating statement … and I advise her that she doesn’t have to answer that question.” ”
So the issue was whether she had given up her 5A rights within the particular proceedings and in respect of the scope of cross-examination of her.
I question whether the removal proceedings are part of the criminal proceedings which follow either in Federal Court or in State Court.
Aren’t they collateral civil proceedings?
See
https://www.justsecurity.org/87884/removal-of-criminal-cases-to-federal-court-two-dozen-faqs/
“
In a removal hearing, which is a civil action before the federal district court, and as with any non-trial proceedings, courts have more flexibility over how strictly they apply the rules of evidence.
How does a defendant establish a colorable defense?
A defendant satisfies his burden under Mesa through “direct averments” and “competent proof.”
A defendant need not testify. [removals relating to underlying civil or criminal matters are similar but may exhibit slight differences due to the different issues at stake]
Neither defendant testified in Heinze.
Affidavits have been used in criminal cases.[37]
In civil cases, the Fifth and Ninth Circuits allow “summary-judgment-type evidence,”[38] and have allowed those opposing removal to submit “extensive evidence outside the pleadings, including military specifications, technical manuals, warning label guides, and deposition excerpts.[39] Criminal cases will likely take the same, if not broader, position.
If a defendant invokes their Fifth Amendment right, is the court able to draw any adverse inference?
It is unclear. …
We are unaware of any case permitting an adverse inference in a removal hearing, and courts have ruled on both sides of the issue in habeas proceedings, which may be analogized to a removal hearing. That said, a defendant who seeks removal under the federal removal statute waives their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in removal proceedings, “at least to the extent of disclosing in his application for removal all the circumstances known to him out of which the prosecution arose.”[40] “
On this view Meadows evidence in these proceedings would be hearsay vis-a-vis any subsequent criminal proceedings, albeit parts may be admissible in evidence by virtue of exceptions to the hearsay rule
Voted illegally. Lock him up!
Nice 'splainer Liz. If there's any justice in this country, Meadows and the rest of the Insurrection bunch should be well fucked.
It's a sleaze shop, sir.
The mountain of poor judgment built by Trump and his lackeys is staggering tall and wide.
Mark Meadows is not a smart man. At all.
Always remember, he was a Republican Congress critter first...
He does have a certain “running with scissors”, “covering self in gasoline and then lighting a match” vibe, don’t he?
"I was just obeying orders." That bird hasn't flown since Nuremberg and it's not even trying this time. He has shot himself in both testicles in a futile attempt to gain the sympathy of a jury.
Objection: implies the presence of balls.
sigh... Sustained.
Ta, Liz. They're all bozos on this bus.
"Back from the shadows again,
Out where an Indian is your friend.
Where the vegetables are green
and you can pee right into the stream.
Yes it's back to the Shadows again!"
They are Bozos who Trump is going to dump under the bus.
"I--the royal we," continued Meadows. "You know, the editorial... Look, I've got certain information, certain things have come to light, and uh, has it ever occurred to you, man, that given the nature of all this new shit, that, uh, instead of running around blaming me, that this whole thing might just be, not, you know, not just such a simple, but uh--you know?"
so, meadows is sitting in his own stools?
[ sure, somebody likely already said it . . . but it bears repeating (not the bears that shat in the woods however) ]
I have backpacked in the arctic. The bears shit on the tundra, but then so have I. Tundra is the Trump of wilderness. It deserves to be shat on.
I wondered why I was singing Kenny Rogers while walking my dogs. I've been busy today & not actively on Wonkette, but I must have passed through.
"If he doesn’t manage to get this case dismissed, Meadows is going to be tried somewhere under Georgia law. And so it was incredibly risky for him to get up on the witness stand and not only lock himself into this testimony, but potentially waive his Fifth Amendment rights at trial. Clearly, he concluded that this hearing was for all the marbles, and so you’d expect him to be well-prepared for questions about the nexus between his actions to thwart the will of the electorate and his official duties. But you would be wrong! According to reporters inside the courtroom, Meadows stumbled badly in his testimony and potentially perjured himself."
A move that obviously no one saw coming /s
Oh, this is going to be fun for Jack Smith and his crowd. They can now investigate Meadows for perjury in violation of federal law and use his testimony against against him AND Trump!
Use his perjury to get him to flip on Pendejo.
How many fake electors does it take to land a plane?
Ooo! Ooo! I know! Exactly as many as it takes to change the result of the Electoral College.
'Meadows, what is it that you do?'
'Don't rightly know.............. GET PAID!'
As if he's getting paid.